Special relativity beyond the speed of light
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Interesting, although there's not too much that can really be gleaned from the article and the abstract. I wonder, though, if this might in some way support Woodward's theory: ie. if his approach to Mach Effect is correct and can be used to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light, this theory provides a coherent explanation of how they will behave/what they would observe beyond the speed of light?
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
M-E theory doesn't allow one to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light. It is a theory of how to produce negative mass and according to other theories, that mass can warp spacetime sufficient to create warps drives and wormholes, but neither of these allow matter to move faster than the speed of light.
In warp theory, space-time itself warps and a warp bubble moves through space at an arbitrarily high speed. There is no relativistic limit to how fast space can travel through space. In a warp system a ship would be at rest inside it's warp bubble, so hit has no velocity; certainly not one higher than c.
In warp theory, space-time itself warps and a warp bubble moves through space at an arbitrarily high speed. There is no relativistic limit to how fast space can travel through space. In a warp system a ship would be at rest inside it's warp bubble, so hit has no velocity; certainly not one higher than c.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Not quite tachyonics, but then "practical" FTL has been dominated by negative mass mechanisms ever since Thorne in 1988 and later Alcubierre in '94. The only similar reputable efforts I'm familiar with are those of Greg Meholic on tachyons - effective velocities would be MASSIVE if his conjectures are correct.CaptainBeowulf wrote:Interesting, although there's not too much that can really be gleaned from the article and the abstract. I wonder, though, if this might in some way support Woodward's theory: ie. if his approach to Mach Effect is correct and can be used to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light, this theory provides a coherent explanation of how they will behave/what they would observe beyond the speed of light?
Vae Victis
as far as I understand this new theory, it absolutely does not mention CROSSING the speed of lights. It deals with objects ALWAYS travelling BELOW C or ABOVE C, but never crossing C. C is a kind of singularity.CaptainBeowulf wrote:Interesting, although there's not too much that can really be gleaned from the article and the abstract. I wonder, though, if this might in some way support Woodward's theory: ie. if his approach to Mach Effect is correct and can be used to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light, this theory provides a coherent explanation of how they will behave/what they would observe beyond the speed of light?
here's an interesting paper that came up on my twitter feed:
Quantum nonlocality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signaling ::
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795
(also featured in the Nature site: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vao ... s2460.html )
not sure i understand what its saying (in fact i'm sure i dont understand it) - but seems to be saying that although 'quantum correlation' (entanglement?) cannot be explained by subluminal physics, but can be by considering superluminal propagation speeds.
(thus related to the topic).
anyone make any better sense of it?
Quantum nonlocality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signaling ::
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795
(also featured in the Nature site: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vao ... s2460.html )
not sure i understand what its saying (in fact i'm sure i dont understand it) - but seems to be saying that although 'quantum correlation' (entanglement?) cannot be explained by subluminal physics, but can be by considering superluminal propagation speeds.
(thus related to the topic).
anyone make any better sense of it?